# Sanchez v. Social Security Administration

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · March 3, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185310

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** March 3, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185310

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRITTANY SANCHEZ CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 18-07367
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION SECTION: “B”(4)
ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court is petitioner Brittany Sanchez’s
memorandum in support of objections to/and the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations. Rec. Docs. 17-1, 16. For
the reasons discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED that instant objections are OVERRULED and
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations are ADOPTED
as the court’s opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises from the denial of petitioner’s application

for Supplemental Security Income Benefits. At the time of her
disability hearing, petitioner was twenty five (25) years old.
Rec. Doc. 9-3. In the past, she was diagnosed with anxiety,
depression, bipolar disorder, and thrombocytopenia.1 Id. She claims
that her disability began on February 24, 2015. Id. On April 7,
2015, petitioner filed an application for Supplemental Security

1 Thrombocytopenia is a condition in which there is a low blood
platelet count, which assists the body in preventing bleeding by
forming blood clots. See generally www.mayoclinic.org.
Income Benefits, which was denied on August 31, 2015. Rec. Doc. 9-
2. Subsequently, petitioner requested a hearing before the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Id. That hearing took place on
March 22, 2017. Id.

The ALJ made several findings relative to petitioner’s
application, to wit:
(1)Plaintiff had not been engaged in substantial gainful
activity since February 24, 2015 and met the insured
status requirements of the Social Security Act through
April 7, 2015; (2) Plaintiff suffered from severe
impairments of major depressive disorder and borderline
intellectual function; and (3) Plaintiff does not have
an impairment or combination of impairments that meets
or medically equals the severity of one of the enumerated
impairments in 20 C.F.R. part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
1.
Id. The ALJ also determined that petitioner “has the residual
functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels subject to the following non-exertional
limitations. . . ” Id. Specifically, the ALJ observed that
petitioner is “limited to simple routine, repetitive concept
tasks.” Id. The ALJ described her limitations as “superficial
interaction with supervisors, co-workers, and the public.” Id.
Moreover, the ALJ noted that petitioner has not performed relevant
work within the last fifteen years. Id.
Furthermore, the ALJ described petitioner as a “younger
individual with a limited education” who is capable of
communicating in English. Id. Notably, the ALJ determined that
transferability of job skills was not material to the determination
of “disability” because the court applied the Medical Vocational
Rules. Id. Thus, the ALJ concluded that petitioner’s age,

education, work experience, and residual functional capacity
render her able to perform jobs existing in the national economy.
Id. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that she had not been “under
disability since April 7, 2015” when she filed for Social Security
Income Benefits. Id.
On August 3, 2018, petitioner filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Rec.
Doc. 1. As procedurally required, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation based on a review of the administrative
record. Rec. Doc. 16. Ultimately, the Magistrate Judge affirmed
the ALJ’s decision denying Supplemental Security Income Benefits
to petitioner. Id. On October 23, 2019, she timely filed her

objections to the Report and Recommendation. Rec Doc. 17.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Local Rule 73.2, a case seeking judicial review of a
Social Security Administration’s decision is to be referred to a
magistrate judge to provide a Report and Recommendation. “A
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter.” Hohmann
v. Soc. Sec. Administration, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139426 *1, *8
(E.D. La. Aug. 16, 2018). The Report and Recommendation to which
a party properly raises its objections is reviewed de novo.
However, a district court’s review is limited to plain error when
a party improperly objects to a Report and Recommendation.

When reviewing a disability claim, a district court is limited
to determining whether: (1) there is substantial evidence in the
record to support the final decision of the Commissioner, as trier
of fact, and (2) the Commissioner applied the appropriate legal
standards to evaluate the evidence. Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131,
135 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 496 (5th
Cir. 1999)); see also Wanzer v. Colvin, 670 Fed. Appx. 280, 282
(5th Cir. 2016)(unpublished)(concluding that ALJ applied correct
legal standard and findings were supported by substantial
evidence).
A. Substantial Evidence in the Record
A district court’s review is predicated on the existence of
substantial evidence in the record. Id. Substantial evidence is

that evidence which a “reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d
1019, 1021-22 (5th Cir. 1990)). If a district court finds that
there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s
decision, then it must uphold the decision. Id. In order to assess
the existence of substantial evidence, a district court considers
four elements of proof: (1) objective medical facts, (2) diagnoses
and opinions of treating and examining physicians, (3) claimant’s
subjective evidence of pain and disability, and (4) claimant’s
age, education, and work history. Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172,
174 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, the ALJ can make any findings that
are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See e.g.,
Hohmann, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139426 at *9.

B. Legal Standard Applied by Commissioner
A district court also must assess the legal standard applied
in the evaluation of the evidence by the Commissioner. Carey v.
Apfel, 230 F.3d 131, 135 (5th Cir. 2000). To be eligible to receive
Social Security Income Benefits under the Social Security Act, a
claimant must show that he is unable to engage in any substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical
or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than 12 months.” Hohmann, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139426

at *9-10. (Emphasis added).
The Fifth Circuit analyzes whether an applicant is capable of
engaging in any substantial gainful activity by assessing the
following factors:
(1) an individual who is working and engaging in
substantial gainful activity will not be found
disabled regardless of the medical findings; (2) an
individual who does not have a “severe impairment”
will not be found to be disabled; (3) an individual
who meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix
1 of the regulations will be considered disabled
without consideration of vocational factors; (4) if
an individual is capable of performing the work he
has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled”
must be made; and (5) if an individual's impairment
precludes him from performing his past work, other
factors including age, education, past work
experience, and residual functional capacity must
be considered to determine if other work can be
performed.
Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1990). Although
the ALJ has a duty to make a sufficient inquiry into the claim,
id. at 1023, the claimant has the burden of proof under the first
four parts of the analysis. Anderson v. Sullivan, 887 F.2d 630,
632-33 (5th Cir. 1989). Thereafter, the burden shifts to the
Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant is capable of
performing other gainful employment. Id.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. ALJ’s assessment of impairments
The record contained substantial evidence supporting the
ALJ’s decision denying petitioner’s disability benefits. The
Social Security Administration’s medical criteria for evaluating
mental disorders provides in pertinent part:
a. This disorder is characterized by significantly
sub- average general intellectual functioning,
significant deficits in current adaptive functioning,
and manifestation of the disorder before age 22. Signs
may include, but are not limited to, poor
conceptual, social, or practical skills evident in
your adaptive functioning.
b. The disorder that we evaluate in this category may
be described in the evidence as intellectual
disability, intellectual developmental disorder, or
historically used terms such as “mental retardation.”
c. This category does not include the mental disorders
that we evaluate under *66162 neurocognitive
disorders (12.02), autism spectrum disorder
(12.10), or neurodevelopmental disorders (12.11).
Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders, 81 FR
66138-01. (Emphasis added).
A claimant must demonstrate that an impairment meets all the
specified medical criteria of the relevant listing, rather than
merely some of the criteria. Campo v. Berryhill, CV 17-4880, 2017
WL 8785561, at *10 (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 2017), report and
recommendation adopted, CV 17-4880, 2018 WL 1726270 (E.D. La. Apr.
10, 2018). “An impairment that manifests only some of the requisite
criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Id.
Accordingly, when a claimant does not sufficiently demonstrate the
specified medical criteria, the district court will find that
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that listing level
impairments were not present. Id. Moreover, the ALJ must apply the
listing in effect at the time of rendering its decision. Id. at *9

(applying listing 12.09 at time of ALJ’s decision).
Although petitioner contends that she met the disability
criteria pursuant to listing 12.05, the “Full Scale IQ score of
70” is insufficient without more to support a disability finding
on the grounds of a mental disorder. The Magistrate Judge reviewed
the ALJ’s findings that petitioner, to wit: (1) had a IQ score of
70; (2) engaged in self-isolation from social activities; (3) could
identify prominent figures in the United States, presently and
historically; (4) performed mental calculations of mathematics;
and (5) possessed a range of intellect “only slightly below age

expectations.” Rec. doc. 16, p. 6-10.
Notwithstanding these observations, the Magistrate Judge
determined that very little in the record suggests “any significant
changes” in petitioner’s overall condition and recognized that her
mental status evaluations and diagnostic results were “largely
normal,” despite medication-induced concentration issues. Id.
Further, the Magistrate Judge assessed whether petitioner had any
deficits in current adaptive functioning. Id., p. 9. Specifically,
the Magistrate Judge noted that “[t]he term ‘adaptive behavior’
refers to the individual’s progress in acquiring mental, academic,
social, and personal skills as compared with other unimpaired
individuals of his/her same age.” Id. The Magistrate Judge noted

that the Commissioner did not “reference any evidence of
[petitioner’s] adaptive behavior.” Id., p. 10.
Despite the absence of such evidence, the Magistrate Judge
reasoned that the ALJ partially considered the opinion of Dr.
Constantin who indicated that petitioner “had moderate activities
of daily living, social functioning and ability to maintain
concentration, persistence or pace” and could “understand,
remember, carryout simple tasks with routine supervision.” Id. at
p. 8-9. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the record
was devoid of evidence that petitioner “was markedly limited in
adaptive behavior.” Id. at 9.
Thus, in the absence of any evidence supporting that

petitioner met the criteria in listing 12.05, the Magistrate Judge
appropriately determined that substantial evidence supported the
ALJ’s findings. Id. Similarly, the Magistrate Judge determined
that the ALJ applied the appropriate medical listing when it
rendered the decision denying petitioner’s benefits. Id. at 8. For
the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge’s appropriately
affirmed the ALJ’s denial of Social Security Income Benefits
because the decision was supported by substantial evidence in the
record demonstrating that petitioner did not meet the mental
disorder listing criteria.
B. ALJ’s final decision on claim
Petitioner’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction

to review a decision by the Secretary not to reopen a case.
Robertson v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 808, 810 (5th Cir. 1986); see also
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977) (an interpretation
that would allow a claimant judicial review simply by filing and
being denied a petition to reopen his claim would frustrate
congressional purpose). Federal courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over a petition to reopen only if “a colorable
constitutional claim is asserted.” Id.
An administrative law judge may dismiss a request for a
hearing when there has been a previous determination or decision
about the claimant’s “rights on the same facts and on the same

issue or issues, and this previous determination or decision has
become final by either administrative or judicial action.” 20
C.F.R. § 404.957(c)(1). Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata
applies and bars the claimant from filing a later application re-
asserting the same claim. See id. The Commissioner’s findings as
to any fact supported by substantial evidence shall be conclusive.
42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g); see also Yates v. Colvin, 606 Fed. Appx.
225, 229 (5th Cir. 2015)(unpublished) (substantial evidence
supported factual findings underlying decision to reopen and no
evidence offered to reject ALJ's legal conclusions).
Further, the court may remand the case to the Commissioner
for further action, including an order for the Commissioner to
consider additional evidence. Id. However, new evidence must be

material and demonstrate good cause for the failure to incorporate
such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding. Id.; see also
Cieutat v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 348, 354 (5th Cir. 1987) (good cause
exists if “[n]ew and material evidence is furnished” and
regulations permitted reopening only upon a finding of good cause).
Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought because her
contentions are barred by res judicata. The Commissioner, the ALJ,
and the Magistrate Judge considered the “Full Scale IQ” report
when rendering its respective decisions denying petitioner’s
Social Security Income Benefits. See supra Section V.A. Moreover,
the Magistrate Judge determined that the IQ test was part of the

record originally and was considered previously by the ALJ. Rec.
Doc. 16, p. 5-6. However, the Magistrate Judge noted that the ALJ
considered the “Full Scale IQ” evidence to be material, but not
new evidence because it was, in fact, part of the record. Rec.
Doc. 16, p. 5-6. Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated that
the “Full Scale IQ score of 70” constituted new and material
evidence nor has she demonstrated good cause for reopening the
case.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims are barred because
petitioner has asserted “rights on the same facts and on the same
issue or issues.” Thus, instant claims befall the doctrine of res
judicata and leaves the court without jurisdiction to review the

decision to reopen or decline to reopen the case.
Moreover, there is substantial evidence in the administrative
record and supporting law for the Commissioner's decision.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 3rd day of March, 2020.

__________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185310. Public record. Not legal advice.